72

A group of people from different cultural backgrounds and distinct languages stay imprisoned in a room, needing to overcome their lack of understanding of each other in order to survive, while involving the audience in a similar matter by not providing any form of translation whatsoever.

A cataclysmic catastrophe of unknown origin locks eight people with dis7nct cultural backgrounds and languages inside a room, at the foreigner’s office of an English-­‐speaking country. They have no knowledge of what has happened outside, only that aAer a great fire breaking out on the roof, the lower levels, where they are at, got swallowed to the ground.The group is comprised of Abe, a German-­‐born doctor and philanthropist, Rodney, the employee of the aforemen7oned foreigner’s office with a leniency towards prejudice, Moïse, a French writer and party-­‐goer, Malost’, a Russian physicist, Zhùfú, a Chinese 92-­‐year-­‐old tourist, Nabu, a Spanis-­‐ speaking janitor, Ben, an Iraqi mathema7cian and Eris, a mute seven-­‐year-­‐old girl whose mother works at the office.A quest for survival becomes an emo7onal journey where these characters come to ques7on whether or not they are the only ones leA in the city, or worse, the world. How can they be responsible for the survival of humanity if their cultural and linguis7c barriers prove to be their biggest challenge, making the most simple of tasks an impossible one?On the surface, 72 is a story of survival with a close-­‐up analysis of modern society and its sins, but to another understanding it is portrayed as a modern reversal of the story of the Tower of Babel, from which such cultural and language problems originate from.For a deeper involvement by the audience and a closer proximity to the story, 72 is spoken in all eight languages without any form of transla7on whatsoever, which essen7ally becomes the core of the experience. What feelings can the movie provide if the audience only understands what they have gathered in their lives, not being assisted by ar7ficial forms of understanding? Will the experience change their individual perspec7ves on society, tolerance and prejudice, even if barely jus7fied by their ignorance, or will it awaken them for the exact same reasons?72 asks the ques7on of whether humans, in general, will ever find a way to work together, and whether or not them as a people and humanity as a species deserves another chance at survival. It becomes the ul7mate test that may or may not mean the end of society as we know it.The events in 72 lead to an unavoidable, yet unexpected conclusion. The characters represent the best and worst that we have in ourselves, but ul7mately represent the whole of humanity, both in metaphorical and possibly, literal terms, making this conclusion come full-­‐circle, as only modern society can.Raison D’Être - A deliberate lack of translation.72 is grounded on the fact that many of the sins commiYed by modern society come from the failure of understanding and, as a consequence, a lack of tolerance and the inevitable ins7nc7ve prejudice different languages provide. It asks the ques7on of whether or not humanity’s hopes are literally lost in transla7on or if, when the opportunity presents itself, mankind’s ins7nct for survival proves stronger, regardless of with whom an alliance has to be formed to achieve a successful outcome.The film’s message, however, can only be given its due importance if the audience is somehow deeply involved in the conflict. The characters’ biggest challenge is understanding their new partners in survival, since only their accumulated skills can provide a safe outcome to their present dilemma. All prejudice and intolerance must be put aside in order for an effort in understanding each other to exist.With this in mind, 72 is a feature-­‐film in eight languages, that doesn’t provide a transla7on to other languages, thus not facilita7ng the experience for members of the audience. It provides a different feeling for each and every member, whose understanding of the film depends heavily on his or her acquired life-­‐experience.It becomes an immersive experience that fits into the best of what experimental cinema has to offer. It is something new, but not to the point of annoying the audience, but rather giving them argumenta7ve points, deserving further thought and conversa7on with others, who experienced something en7rely different when watching 72.